ericgrimsrud

In a recent post entitled “Has the Earth’s temperature stopped increasing”, I pointed out why the often heard claim of the Deniers that the Earth’s temperature has not increased in the last 16 years has to be fallacious.  We know that the Earth is now being overheated by a man-enhanced greenhouse effect that is equivalent to the explosions of two Hiroshima-sized bombs per second.  That added heat must be going somewhere and increasingly we are understanding that a large portion of it is going  deeper into the oceans rather than to the Earth’s surfaces.

Now a new paper by climate scientists Kevin Cowtan of the University of York and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa  published in the Royal Meteorological Society provides another important revelation.  A short user-friendly video conveying its essential contents can be seen at:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-since-1997-more-than-twice-as-fast.html

In my own words the gist of this paper is as follows:  In the past we have used a set of temperatures measured over about 85% of the Earth’s surface as a measure of what we call “climate change”.  These measurement stations were chosen and have been used for over 150 years because they could be reached with relative ease.  That, however, meant that about 15% or the Earth’s surface was not included in that conventional measurement of “global average temperature”.  These neglected regions included the Arctic, the Antarctic and large portions of Africa.

In the last few decades, we have been able to monitor surface temperatures over the entire world via instrument-equipped satellites. What this new paper describes is a method by which missing portions of the Earth’s temperature record can be determined and added to the total data set..

And guess what?  In doing so, the more complete data set thereby obtained reveals much greater total surface warming over recent decades including the last one.  This result is not surprising to climate scientists who have expected greater increases in the temperatures at the poles of the Earth relative to all places of lower latitude.  The significant contribution of this paper is to show how those polar changes can be rolled into that data set that previously included only 85%  of the Earth.

In any case, one can now shout “you lie!!” when you hear someone say that the Earth’s surfaces have not warmed in the last decade and refer them to the short video referred to above.

While the use of nuclear reactors for energy generation has a spotty history and remains controversial today, I believe that we should greatly increase our investments in this area.  Just one of my reasons for this was allegedly expressed by the gangster Willy Sutten – when asked by a reporter why he robbed banks, his answer was reported to be “because that’s where they keep the money!”

Similarly, it is within the atoms, not molecules, where serious quantities of energy are stored and it is through the controlled nuclear  transformations  that can be made to occur in modern reactors that that energy can be reliably and safely released.  “Ya but”, I can already hear many of you saying.  So in order to get past some of those negative reactions instantly aroused whenever the word “nuclear” is used, let’s consider some of the actual history of the nuclear reactor developments that began in the USA in the 1940’s.

In describing that history, it is useful to divide the nuclear reactors thereby built or envisioned into four classes. Class I plants were based on relatively primitive graphite-pile reaction cores – first developed during the Second World War for the purpose of making the fissionable nuclide, Plutonium-239, that was used in two of the three atomic bombs first developed in 1945. The nuclear reactor that exploded at Chernobyl in the Russian Ukraine in 1986 was a distinctly outdated and primitive Class I reactor.

The Class II reactors were also developed in the mid-twentieth century and include most of those in use today. They are based on much safer and more controllable water-based reaction cores. The reactors that were recently overwhelmed by the tsunami that hit Fukushima, Japan, in 2011 were 30 to 40-year-old Class II reactors.

The few new reactors that are being built today are Class III reactors. They are based on the same principles as Class II reactors but include new technologies for increased safety, control and longer useful lifetimes.

Class IV reactors are still in their development stage and various versions of them are expected to come on board gradually in the next several decades. They are generally based on the use of a liquid metal (such as sodium at high temperature) as the core moderator. These “fast-flux” reactors, as they are called, are capable of “burning” all of the heavy elements put into their core. For example, naturally-occurring uranium contains less than 1% of its isotope 235 and this isotope, only, undergoes nuclear fission in conventional reactors of the types I, II, and III. In a class IV reactor, uranium-238 which constitutes over 99% of natural uranium is converted to other heavy nuclides which then also undergo nuclear fission. In this way, all of the uranium added to a Class IV reactor is burned. Note also that the Earth contains an almost inexhaustible supply of uranium-238 and other heavy elements that can be used in Class IV reactors. Even the massive amounts of waste products accumulated from our prior use of the older reactors can be used as fuel for Class IV reactors.

Another great advantage of Class IV reactors is that their radioactive wastes are much easier to deal with. They produce far fewer radioactive wastes and these consist only of elements in the middle of the periodic table with radioactive half-lives much shorter than the waste products of the conventional reactors.

In retrospect, it was clearly a mistake for the USA to discontinue its research and development in the area of nuclear power plants some 30 or more years ago.  But we did not know then as well as we do now the problem that would be posed by our continued dependence on fossil fuels. We do now know, however, that the problems posed by the use of fossil fuels are probably not solvable while those associated with nuclear fuels are solvable. So even though we have squandered several exceedingly important decades that might have been better used to address our current global warming problem, it seems to me that we should get back on the nuclear track ASAP.

It also seems pretty clear to me that the world’s future energy needs must be met by a combination of renewables, nuclear, and increased efficiencies while CO2 emissions are cut to near zero within the next couple decades – no matter what pain and sacrifice  might be required to make those cuts.  Anything less might very possibly render all other future endeavors of mankind pointless.  A new film called “Pandora’s Promise” will also presents the case for “green” nuclear power and will be aired on the evening of Nov. 7 on CNN (9 pm Eastern).  Please watch it.  After all, it is within the nuclei of the atoms that the bulk of our energy is stored.

After I retired from full-time employment, I immediately recognized that I needed a “hobby” that would fill my days with meaningful activities.  Therefore, I often joke that “saving the planet” seemed like a good one for me.  Clearly someone has to do it, right?  So I have tried, at least, to lend support to that endeavor.

This post concerns the similar and far more real efforts being made in that direction by one of my relatives, brother-in-law Jack Rajala of Grand Rapids, Minnesota.  As an introduction to Jack and his current activities, please read the article referenced below that recently appeared in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune.

http://www.startribune.com/local/228250501.html

Jack is the grandson of a Finnish immigrant, Ivar Rajala, who began logging in northern Minnesota in the early 20th Century.  In 1942, three of Ivar’s seven sons developed one of Minnesota’s most complete sawmilling operations in Bigfork Minnesota.  One of them, Art Rajala, was Jack’s father.  Growing up in that environment and then spending almost all of his subsequent life working in the continuously evolving forest products industries, Jack has had a ring side seat to forest management over his 74 years of living and working within them.  Since the very beginning, one of Rajala operations has been to ensure healthy and sustainable forests.  In additon to caring for their own forest lands, the company has provided counsel to private and public land managers.

You will note in the article referred to above Jack’s particular focus on the White Pine, a majestic tree that might turn out to be well-suited to the warmer climates expected ahead.  Ironically, the White Pine was once the dominant species of the North Woods of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, but was reduced by early logging practices to about one percent of its previous abundance.  In the latter portion of his life, Jack has probably done more than any other single human being in  “Bringing Back the White Pine” and, for those interested in learning more about this quest, Jack has written a book bearing that title.

Enough said here – but please do read the article referred to above for the full story concerning the plight of our  pine forests in the North Woods of Minnesota.  Having spent many summer vacations “Up North” myself in Minnesota, I also have a strong personal interest in preserving them for future generations.  In fact, Kathy and I recently purchased a summer cabin on a small lake north of Grand Rapids by which we hope to expose our now young grandchildren to that invigorating region of their planet just as we previously did for all four of our own children.  There is no better place for an extended family to get together and with Jack’s help, we will all try to learn more about preserving it.

While CO2 emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere continue to increase each year,  I often wonder if there is one single factor or change that might finally lead to a decrease and then the termination of those emissions.   I think I know what that factor is, but don’t know when it will show up .  This critically important factor is not, as some claim, making the basic science involved clearer and more irrefutable.  That has already occurred -some 97% of the legitimate scientists who do research in this area every day agree that CO2-induced warming is occurring and that CO2  emissions need to be cut immediately.  In addition, the 5th major report recently released by the IPCC assigned almost 100% certainty to this view.   While only about half of our elected officials accept this view, I do not believe that our elected officials constitute the  bottleneck  to forceful action on climate change that I am looking for.

I believe instead that the essential factor still missing is the lack of leadership exhibited, to date, by the leaders of  the corporate world – that is, the leaders of the existing Business as Usual (BAU) forces of our country and the world.  Let’s face it, money does make the world go around and essentially all of our elected officials are more influenced by the short term flow of that stuff than by the recommendations of scientists.

Resistance to forceful action against climate change by our corporate leadership is not at all surprising – it has been repeatedly observed in the past.  The forces for BAU will generally not change directions on major issues unless it is clear that there will be more money to be made in doing so.  Their primary responsibility is to make money for their employees and stockholders and is not to be the caretakers of the Earth’s environment.  In addition, if it suits their purposes they will not hesitate to discredit the governmental agencies and scientific communities that do have that responsibility.

An excellent example of all of this was played out before us not too long ago, between the years of 1974 and 1985, during what became known as the  “stratospheric ozone / chlorofluorocarbon” controversy.   The CFC’s were a class of compounds invented and produced by the DuPont Corporation under the trade name, Freon.  These compounds had proved to be extremely useful in a wide variety of domestic and industrial applications and presented no immediate danger to the users.  Therefore, the industrial production of CFC’s was increasing exponentially (doubling every seven years) until 1975.  Then in 1974 atmospheric scientists,  Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, suggested that the CFC’s might be damaging the Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer.  A great deal of additional basic research then followed, almost all of which strongly supported this theory.  I happened to be personally involved in this early research – making the first measurements of the main CFC, Freon-12, in the background atmosphere in 1974. The ozone / CFC theory and subsequent research was met with very strong resistance, however, by the DuPont Corporation and other industrial forces that had become dependent on the use of the Freons.  The chairmen of DuPont’s board of directors, Irving Shapiro, said “the ozone depletion theory is a science fiction tale . . . a load of rubbish, utter nonsense” (Chemical Week, July 16, 1975).

Throughout the following ten years, the public and their elected officials were kept in a state of confusion and uncertainty concerning the reality of stratospheric ozone depletion by the battle played out in the media between atmospheric scientists and the representatives of industry.   In that battle, the forces for existing BAU had little difficulty finding their own set of so-called “experts” who were willing to state that stratospheric ozone depletion was not being caused by the CFC’s.  It is telling to note that one of these “in-house” scientists was none other than Dr. Fred Singer who has more recently been providing those same services to the BAU industrial forces during the current and ongoing media debates concerning man-caused global warming.

Then in 1985 everything changed.  Suddenly the DuPont corporation agreed that the CFC’s were destroying stratospheric ozone and that their production should be curtailed as soon as possible.  In TV ads, DuPont then changed from being the leading denier of CFC’s effects to that of being a “savior” of the environment.  So what caused that sudden reversal?  The facts suggest that there were two reasons.

One of these was undoubtedly that an “ozone hole” in the stratosphere above Antarctica was discovered in 1985 and was shown to be caused by chlorine atoms carried to that region by the CFC’s.   By “hole” what is meant is that the ozone concentration went to near zero in some regions of the Antarctic stratosphere during their Springtime. The irrefutable clarity of this remarkable observation made it much more difficult for DuPont to refute the hazard posed by the CFC’s.

Another and perhaps even more significant reason for DuPont’s change of attitude, however, was that by 1985, DuPont was well-poised for making an additional fortune by the production of chemical alternates to the chlorofluorocarbon.  The alternate compounds included first the hydrochlorofluorocarbons and then the entirely “ozone-friendly” hydrofluorocarbons that are widely used today.   Furthermore, the Dupont Corporation agreed to halt their productions of CFC’s on the condition that they be banned globally so that the new alternate compounds they would soon be making  would not have to compete with relatively inexpensive CFC’s produced abroad.   After those conditions were met by international agreements, DuPont then had an open field for the production of the replacement compounds and, indeed, have done very well in that area ever since.

So does this example apply  to the issue of climate change?  First, it is recognized that  addressing the climate change problem will be much more challenging than addressing the ozone / CFC problem was.  The CO2-induced warming problem is now over 160 years in the making – both individuals and almost all of industry has become thoroughly addicted to fossil fuels for the generation of energy.   Nevertheless and as difficult as it might be, when the CEO’s of industry do get on board, things will finally happen .  The corporate world has a tremendous and, I think, determining influence on public opinion.  Right now, Big Oil provides the public with misleading advertisements in which they assure us all that they are “taking care of” the public interests – by providing the energy needs of the people through “all of the above” approaches.  These approaches includes the development of new sources of gas and oil as well as the development of “clean” technologies, such as wind and solar.  In these ads, we are assured that “all will be OK, don’t worry, we are on top of the energy problems”.

Unfortunately, the real intent of ads such as these is simply to put the public to sleep.  Big Oil and Gas companies are not, in fact, forcefully addressing the climate change problem yet.  Only a very small fraction of their resources are being directed towards the clean technologies.  In very recent years a lion’s share of their investments have been for the development of “non-traditional” sources of fossil fuels – such as tar sands and shale gas and oil produced by recently developed fracking techniques.  As a result, we are not headed towards a new era of clean energy production.  We are, in fact, headed towards a new era of fossil fuel production and use – that of the non-traditional carbon sources – in which the CO2 emitted per energy unit gained will be even greater than before.

In addition, consider this: the Earth contains many times more carbon-based fossil fuels of all types than have been already used since the beginning of the Industrial Age and the value of all of these fossil fuels is increasing as these new non-traditional extraction techniques are being developed.  On the other hand, the value of those fossil fuel holdings will go towards zero if we decide to leave them in the ground, as we should if we get serious about decreasing CO2 emissions.  This puts enormous additional pressure on the CEO’s of Big Oil and Gas to ensure the continued use of their products.

Only when the forces for BAU decide to stop fooling the public and come clean with respect to the true long term costs to humanity of continued fossil fuel  use, will we finally be headed in the right direction.  Because of their overwhelming financial clout, only then will our elected officials gain the courage to do the right thing. I have no idea when this change might occur and have no intention of holding my breath until it does.   The main purpose of this post has been simply to identify what I believe is the major reason why we are not yet moving along a scientifically obvious and socially responsible path to ridding our atmosphere of its excess CO2 content.

One hears or reads the claim that the Earth’s temperature is no longer increasing – or even that it is decreasing – very often these days in the public media.  As a scientist who knows that this cannot be – given the physical principles that control the Earth’s energy balance  – I am always on the lookout for presentations that lay unwarranted “happy science” notions such as this one to rest.  I have found such a presentation and urge you to watch it at:

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/new-yale-forum-video-examines-key-point-global-includes-oceans-too/

The central point this video makes is that most of the extra heat the Earth has to absorb due to its increasing levels of green house gases goes into the oceans – while claims of no or little warming during the last decade  have been based entirely on surface temperature measurements.   The temperature of Earth’s surfaces reflect only a small fraction of the total excess heat uptake of the Earth, however.  In addition, small increases in surface temperature can be partially or even entirely negated  by short-term natural variations for both warming and cooling over a period of several years.  In order to measure the total heat increase of the Earth, temperature measurements of the oceans at all depths are required.  Such measurements, both direct and indirect (sea level), are increasingly being provided and to no one’s surprise, we see that the total heat content of the Earth is increasing tremendously – at a rate equivalent to that of about 400,000 Hiroshima-type nuclear bombs per day!

All of this is consistent with well- known physical principles determining the Earth’s total heat content – while undue emphasis is placed on short-term changes in surface temperatures by the deniers of man-caused warming.  Their misinterpretation of those measurements has provided the deniers with their favorite weapon in deceiving the public.  Using surface temperatures only would be analogous to using temperature measurements of your little toe to see if you had a fever! These Deniers appear to have no respect for the intelligence of the public – which now hopefully knows more than they do.

So please do have a look at the video referred to above.  It clarifies this central point as well as any presentation I have seen.

If you happen to be a scientifically literate US citizen and do not dismiss the problems being caused by the relentless advance of greenhouse gas warming, you should consider also how climate change is related to the immigration policies of the USA.  The central question there is: if the Earth is getting warmer and people want to move from countries that are already being severely impacted by climate change to countries that are not yet being as severely impacted, should we take measures that facilitate that form of migration into the USA?  As will be made clear below, that question is a tough one that pits the traditional humanitarian instincts of the USA against a set of seemingly cruel conclusions derived from the scientific facts surrounding this issue.

For starters, let’s consider the recent recommendation of Hawaii’s Senator Brian Schatz.  Senator Schatz is genuinely concerned about climate change, but he also believes that the United States should be more open to absorbing its impacts on the developing world. When the comprehensive immigration reform bill was being debated in the U.S. Senate in June 2013, Schatz proposed an amendment to create a special status for climate refugees.  That amendment would have allowed the State Department to designate groups of applicants as being “stateless persons” for the purpose of legalizing their permanent  presence in the United States.  To qualify, their home nations would have to have been “made uninhabitable by climate change.”

I am sure that most of us have great sympathy for Senator Schatz’s recommendation. It seems entirely fair and appropriate – especially in view of the fact that the developed countries of the world are primarily responsible for the degradation our planet has suffered to date via greenhouse gas warming. Let’s now also consider, however, the recommendation that emerges when some basic facts associated with man-caused global warming are considered.

The only factor man has any control over in affecting the extent of future warming by the greenhouse gases is how much of the stuff he emits in the coming decades and centuries. That’s it – there is nothing else we have control over.  And the magnitude of those total emissions will be determined by two factors – one is the total population of the Earth and the other is the individual emissions of the subsets of  people that inhabit the Earth.  It is known that the individuals in the developed countries emit roughly three times the main greenhouse gas, CO2, as do individuals living in underdeveloped countries.  Thus a simple relationship for expected total CO2 emissions is:  total emissions will be proportional to  (population in undeveloped) x 1 + (population in developed countries) x 3.  Therefore, in controlling total emissions, it is the magnitude of the population living in the developed countries that matters most and climate-induced migration will increase that critically important number.  For every person that moves from an underdeveloped to a developed country, that change is equivalent to adding two new individuals to the total population of the undeveloped countries. Thus, if allowed, a high level of migration from the underdeveloped to the developed countries constitutes twice the negative impact on global climate change than do their increasing birthrates.

Now, one could protest “but these new immigrants will not emit 3 times more CO2 than they did previously!” The facts, however, do not support that statement.  The Hispanics arriving from Mexico, for example, tend to become just as good at consumption as most of us US residents once they establish their new lives in the USA.  After all, isn’t that why they came here?

In addition, if the developed countries of the world provide a safety valve for the venting of the growing populations of the underdeveloped countries, might not the populations of the undeveloped, as well as the developed countries continue to go up? Won’t the populations of the underdeveloped countries stabilize only when there is no relief valve for their excessive numbers?

Or how about this one?  If we reduced the emissions of people living in the developed countries to those of the individuals living in the underdeveloped countries, then we could increase immigration to the US without increasing total emissions, right?  The showstopper here, of course, is that both ancient and recent history suggests that this is not going to happen. Human beings just aren’t that good and there is no reason to think they get better and more socially responsible when they get wealthier. More likely, they tend to think they have a basic right to enjoy the high carbon footprint life style they have earned.

In digesting these distinctly unpleasant thoughts concerning immigration, it is useful to remind ourselves that Mother Nature calls the shots and She will be a cruel mistress if we get it wrong.  To my knowledge, She does not pay any attention whatsoever to the preferences of any of the species that have inhabited our planet. While dinosaurs managed to roam the Earth for some 300 million years, homosapiens just recently arrived – only about one-tenth of a million years ago. About 65 millions years ago, the dinosaurs were brought down by a sudden change in their atmosphere (it appears that sunlight-reflecting particles were produced globally by a meteor striking the Yucatan peninsula). And Man is now doing his suicidal best to bring down his own short-lived species by adding excessive amounts of greenhouse gases to his atmosphere. In each of these cases, Mother Nature responded and will respond in a manner that is now relatively well understood and readily predicted by science. While the dinosaurs had no control over their demise, Man does – if he uses that portion of his body that is supposedly superior to that of the dinosaurs.

Thus, the environmental refugee problem described above provides yet another dilemma and  springboard that calls for action on climate change. Sadly, this appears to mean that along with many other changes, we must prevent an increase in immigration from the developing world into cooler and more stable climes in the developed world.  I would like to be able to suggest a more “friendly” solution to the expected environmental refugee problem, but cannot think of one.  Nevertheless, I am all ears with respect to what that might be –  again while recognizing that Mother Nature will not be friendly to any species that  gets it wrong.

An idea that originated in Oregon concerning the payment of student tuition in the public institutions of higher learning is now being widely considered throughout the USA.  The idea, sometimes called the “Pay It Back” plan, is essentially this. There would be no tuition charged to students while they are enrolled in their studies. Upon graduation, however, the students  would agree to pay their alma mater(s) about 3% of their salaries for about 25 years. The main driving force behind this plan is that the present system burdens too many of our young adults with a level of debt  that severely limits the options they can afford to consider upon graduation.

I happen to like the Oregon Plan not only for the reason described above but also for another that might be just as important. During my several decades of teaching everyone’s favorite subject (chemistry!) at several universities, I increasingly came to believe that the funding mechanism of our universities was fundamentally flawed and limited the quality of the services the universities provide to society. Let me explain.

Most public universities are now reimbursed for their expenses via the payment of tuition by the students and from state funds allotted to offset some of the students’  costs. The total amount the university then receives is determined primarily by a number called the “total student  credit hours” provided by that institution.  Another somewhat cynical term often used for this number is the “student body count”.  Keeping that body count as high as possible along with the development of its research enterprises are the main mechanisms by which the university attempts to maximize its income.

Therefore, as a university instructor, I was constantly reminded by my upper administrations of the paramount importance of the retention of existing students (the recruitment of new students was primary the responsibility of university outreach personnel). Of course, that retention message was always provided in a progressive and high-minded manner – that is, it is the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that  all students “find themselves” within the range of programs offered by the university. While advising students, however, it frequently occurred to me that many student might have been better off going home or somewhere in the public workforce until they had gained a better view of how the programs of the university could help them. In the many large introductory  courses I taught in General Chemistry, one of my favorite subsets of  students was the one  I called the “senior citizens” of the class –  a collection of 30-some-years olds who had come back to the university after they saw more clearly where they needed advanced education.

Universities are great “businesses” and the people that run them are smart enough to adjust to whatever funding mechanism they are provided. If the game continues to be a simple “body count”, they will continue to play that game very well – while simultaneously presenting a public image that is progressive and high-minded.  In order to provide a better investment for the public dollar, however, I think that most American universities are in need of no less than a basic “heart transplant” with respect to the way they are paid for their services. Adoption of the Oregon Plan would provide such a change.

Under this alternative plan, a major portion of total tuition payments to the university would be based on factors much more related to the overall quality and maturity of its graduates. While it would still be a “body count” of sorts, it would be one that would be heavily weighted by the collective abilities of each institution’s graduates to contribute to the society that paid for their educations.

Furthermore, I believe that the “retention at all costs” approach has contributed to several distinctly unfortunate outcomes within our public universities – including grade inflation, teaching to the test, dumbing-down of course content, and lowered expectations of student body performance.  In the process, it has been accompanied by the replacement of tenure-track and research-active faculty in the large entry level courses by part-time instructors. While most of the part-timers I knew were good-to-excellent teachers, they also knew very well that they had better have lots of happy students filling out those student evaluations forms at the completion of each course if they wanted to be retained the following year. Thus, the part-timers could not, in general, be as demanding of student self-motivation and performance as a tenured faculty member could be. This division of teaching duties has isolated the mainline tenure-track and research-active faculty who comprise the epicenter of each academic department from the bulk of students entering our large universities. As a result , these two groups of people do not get to know each other and  a great deal of talent goes undetected and underdeveloped.

Another outcome of our present emphasis on “retention at all costs” is a great expansion of administrative costs and personnel associated with the increasingly complex flow of students throughout ever-expanding sets of special programs. Thus, we now typically have a wide range of Vices, Assistant to the Vices, and Associates employed within each administrative office including those of the President, the Provost, the Deans, the Department Chairs and Student Services. Since the salaries associated with such positions are typically among the highest within the university system, funds are thereby displaced from student/teacher interactions where the quality of an institution’s graduates is determined.

All funding mechanisms, including the Oregon Plan, will raise new problems and will have downsides.  A very big one, for example, is how would a given state get an Oregon Plan off the ground when it would take several years before graduates were contributing to the system?  Nevertheless, I am sufficiently convinced of our present system’s deficiencies that I favor trying a plan that is totally different at its heart. Universities will continue to be successful businesses whatever financial game they are forced to play.  However,  it is also clear to me that these inevitable internal successes (everyone wants to go to the U, right?) could provide a much better return than they presently do for the enormous investments our state and country makes in higher education.

Having coexisted with large populations of antelope, deer, elk and moose while living several decades in Montana, I am personally saddened to see what is happening to some of these magnificent animals in recent years.  With global warming, we first saw the populations of the pine beetles explode – to the detriment of the lodge pole pine – and now we are beginning to see the explosion of tick populations – to the detriment of some of the animals listed above.  Turns out that scores of dead moose, in particular, are being now found in Minnesota, Maine, and elsewhere that appear to have been brought down by the hundreds of thousands of ticks found on their bodies. It looks as though the warmer winters across the northern regions of the Midwest and East have failed to knock back the populations of these insects as they did several decades ago.

As a previous hunter of all of the animals listed above, I always did my best to get a clear and close shot so that the animal was brought down promptly with a minimum of suffering.  Very occasionally, however, I was not sufficiently successful in achieving a “clean kill” of that sort and was saddened whenever that happened. There is no joy in watching a wounded animal suffer and the “natural” death some of these animals are now suffering – due to another of man’s impacts on their lives – is absolutely horrific to contemplate. The only aspect of this means of  “putting them down” that causes us less pain is that we don’t have to watch.

For one of many, many stories concerning this increasing threat to our four-legged friends in the woods, see http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/25582-1

In a comment placed on the my previous post, one reader pointed out that “all sides” of the global warming issue should be heard and carefully considered. I agree entirely but only as long as the consensus view of Science is being included as one of those “sides”.  Furthermore, when someone claims that the “theory” of AGW is just a Hoax without a scientific basis, I expect them to be aware, at least, of the essence of what that theory is.  Therefore, it might be helpful at this point to remind all of us what, in a concise and an easily digestible form, does Science say about this issue. It centers on what is called the “greenhouse effect” and goes like this:

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the THEORY of greenhouse gases. If a scientific theory is shown to be a good one, it will have ‘predictive power’ and those predictions are likely to come true.  So first, what is the greenhouse effect?

The greenhouse gas theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier  work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientists have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all of these have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

The predicted AMOUNT of greenhouse warming is still a work in progress. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, defined to be the amount the average temperature will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F) for a doubling of CO2.

The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation.  The Earth then attempts to cool itself by its emission of longer wavelength infrared radiation into outer space. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will ‘capture’ some of that infrared radiation, however, and then re-emit it in all directions – including back to the Earth’s surface – thus warming it.

We are fortunate that we have a strong greenhouse effect. CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface about 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. But we have now added 42% more CO2 to the atmosphere during the Industrial Age, and temperatures have increased further – by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F).  We are presently adding about 0.6% more CO2 to the atmosphere every year mainly via the combustion of fossil fuels.

In addition to temperature measurements, we can also measure the infrared radiation referred to above. This is easily done with instruments placed on the surface of the Earth and for several decades now we have also been able to make such measurements via satellites of the infrared radiation that is leaving the Earth. During recent decades – when CO2 levels and temperatures have increased the most – the observed emissions of upward infrared radiation have continuously decreased and those of downward infrared radiation have continuously increased exactly at the wavelengths associated with the greenhouse gases. These measurements also tell us that the Earth is warming and, furthermore, they tell us why.

In summary, as temperatures started to rise in recent decades, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside and have been discarded for a lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, increasingly strengthened by experiments.

Unfortunately, not liking the predictions of a given theory is not sufficient grounds for discarding or even doubting it. That is, Mother Nature seems to do her own thing without notice of the preferences of  human beings.  At the same time, Science has historically provided our best estimates of what Mother Nature is likely to do. Therefore, when posting comments here concerning the science of climate, I would encourage the commenter to keep this “opinion” of modern Science in mind and consider how their own “new insights” might possibly affect that consensus view. At the very least, I think the fields of science deserve this level of respect and more importantly, starting discussions with “what science thinks” spares us the need to “reinvent the wheel” in every discussion of this issue. Saying simply that “Svante Arrhenius was a fool” will not cut it here.

A recent study   (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/max_boykoff/readings/hmielowski_2013.pdf) surveyed a nationally representative sample of over 1,000 Americans about their media consumption and beliefs about climate change. As I would have suspected from my own observations, the results of this study indicated that conservative media consumption (specifically Fox News and Rush Limbaugh) decreases viewer trust in scientists, which in turn decreases belief that global warming is happening.  In contrast, consumption of non-conservative media (specifically ABC, CBS,NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, and The Washington Post) increases consumer trust in scientists, and in turn belief that global warming is happening.

The study concluded that the conservative media creates distrust in scientists through five main methods:

1) Presenting contrarian scientists as “objective” experts (even though they have no record of professional accomplishments in the areas of climate science) while presenting mainstream scientists (who invariably do have such records of professional accomplishment) as being self-interested or biased.

2) Denigrating scientific institutions and peer-reviewed journals.

3) Equating peer-reviewed research with a politically liberal opinion.

4) Accusing climate scientists of manipulating data to fund research projects.

5) Characterizing climate science as a religion.

Fox News engages in all five of these tactics.  For example – contrarian meteorologist Joe Bastardi, a frequent climate misinformation guest on Fox News, recently claimed that CO2 cannot cause warming because it doesn’t “mix well in the atmosphere” – while we have known for many decades that CO2 is, in fact, very well-mixed throughout our atmosphere.

With conservatives tending to get their scientific misinformation from conservative media sources, this is increasing the political polarization on the subject of climate change. However, with the real-world effects of climate change constantly becoming more difficult to deny, this is not a sustainable situation. Eventually reality must break in, and there are signs that this is beginning to happen at least among  an increasing number of young conservatives who are demanding that the Republican Party stop denying the problem and begin participating in the solutions. This study found that younger American voters under the age of 35 – including 53% of young Republicans – now associate the denial of global warming with words like “ignorant,” “out-of-touch” or “crazy” .

Nevertheless, from my own vantage point of a near 70-year-old, it seems to me that most of my “more mature” conservative friends are still all avid FOX News watchers and take pride in ignoring the rest (usually referred to by them as being “the mainstream liberal media”). Not surprisingly, on the subject of climate science almost all of these folks distrust the huge majority (97%) of American scientists (including me) who  provide them with the message on climate change they would prefer not to hear.

All of which leaves me asking myself:  why do my older and otherwise intelligent conservative friends proudly appear to be scientifically stupid and illiterate when it comes to this vitally important subject?  Do they really think that the obese, childless millionaire, Rush LImbaugh, either knows anything at all about the science of climate change or that he even cares about the welfare of future generations?  Or is it primarily that my elderly conservative friends cannot bear to acknowledge that the carbon-driven good life they have enjoyed and are still enjoying is causing the severe degradation of the planet they will be leaving to their grandchildren. If their reason is the latter, then I can understand why their consciences might possibly be soothed by the FOXy fat man or anyone else who casts doubt concerning the messengers of distinctly bad and worsening scientific news.

Whatever the reason for my generation’s obtuseness, just waiting for us all to die off is not going to provide an acceptable solution – even for the long term.  With CO2 levels still rising exponentially every year, only the actions we can manage to take right now – before irreversible run-away effects kick in – are likely to do any good.  So perhaps we should all try to help out a bit more than we do or, at the very least, try not to obstruct the efforts of those who are trying to find solutions.  For starters, the establishment of a carbon tax would seem to be an absolute necessity.

(If any of my elderly friends out there need help in understanding any portion of what I have said here, I will be happy to respond to any comments you might like to post).